Intellectual Property Law

geoengineering: climate change and really big umbrellas

By Obi

    let's say you go to the beach.    it's really hot.     the sand burns your feet.    the sunlight feels like thousands of tiny needles pricking your skin.    that's ok, because you have an umbrella.  you stick it in the sand and open it, engineering a cooler environment for yourself.   

    why can't global warming be approached in the same way?    instead of  twisting ourselves into knots trying to counteract the earth's warming by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, most of which are generated by nature after all, why can't we simply reduce the amount of solar radiation that reaches the surface of the planet? 

    last month, notables from the ranks of climate scientists met in cambridge, ma. to discuss that very proposition.   (see also here.)    a number of engineering solutions were discussed (not all of which are "umbrella solutions").    Here are some:

1.  seed the oceans with iron to stimulate the growth of plankton, which would then devour and digest vast amounts of carbon dioxide.
2.  create artificial volcanoes to seed the skies with sulfur.    Sulfates are known to have a cooling effect on the atmosphere,
3.  create artificial trees  to absorb carbon dioxide.
4.  shoot trillions of small optical shields into orbit to refract sunlight, thereby reducing the amount that reaches the earth's surface.
5.  better forest practices and advanced agricultural techniques.
6.  geological carbon co2 sequestration

    these propositions are roundly criticized within and outside the academic community.  why?  because they cut against the perceived wisdom, the mantra of reducing consumption (and, sotto voce, increased human suffering ) being chanted to folks the world over.    it appears, for example, that sulfate injection could be accomplished at levels that would counteract global warming for a few billions of dollars a year, a pittance in comparison to converting the world's energy supply from hydrocarbons to solar, fuel cell, wind or the alternative energy source of your choice.

    of course there are reasons to criticize the notion of air-conditioning the entire earth.  most of these can be summed up by my favorite caution: all human activity has unintended consequences.    however, it is amusing (in a fatalistic way) to see the advocates of sacrifice and suffering warning that we don't know what the consequences of human efforts at engineering techniques are scary because we don't know how to calculate what side climatic effects they may have, while at the same time proclaiming that we know to reasonable certainty what the side climatic effects of cutting human-generated greenhouse gas emissions will be. 

    the advocates of world-wide-wide self-flagellation also argue that geoengineering would require consent and cooperation from many nations. which -- they say-- might be difficult to obtain.    now, wait a minute, children.    does anyone really think that it would be harder (for instance) to obtain india's and china's consent and cooperation in launching rockets to emplace optical shields in space, or in spraying sulfates into the air than to obtain their cooperation  in legislating sacrifice and suffering for their people? 

Full post as published by TechLawyer on December 06, 2007 (boomark / email).